The Geopolitics of Israel’s Fight Against Terrorism | Sunday Extra

[Theme music fades out]

John Bickley: The NFL is back, and FanDuel's got everything you need to play your game. From same-game parlays to live betting. Right now, new customers bet $5 and get $300 in bonus bets if you win. 21-plus in president select states. 18-plus in Kentucky and Wyoming. Must be first online real money waging. $5 deposit required. Bonus issued is non-withdrawable bonus bets that expire seven days after receipt. Restrictions apply. See full terms at FanDuel.com slash sportsbook. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER.

[Theme music fades back in, then out]

John Bickley: Coordinated attacks by Iran-backed Hamas terrorists have been met with a prompt and powerful response from Israel this week, while many questions remain to be answered. To what extent was Iran involved in the strikes? And what impact will the conflict have on Israel's relationships with other countries in the Middle East? In this episode, we talk with William Ruger, president of the American Institute for Economic Research about the geopolitical impact of the war. I'm Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief John Bickley with Georgia Howe. It's Sunday, October 15th, and this is an extra edition of Morning Wire.

[Theme music fades out]

Georgia Howe: Joining us now is Will Ruger, President of the American Institute for Economic Research, a veteran of the Afghanistan war and Trump's nominee to be ambassador to that country.

Will Ruger: Well, thank you so much for joining us. And first, thank you for your service.

John Bickley: We saw a horrific attack on the civilians in Israel this last weekend by Hamas. What are your initial thoughts on why Hamas launched this coordinated attack on Israel now?

Will Ruger: Yeah, I mean, it's a complicated situation and it has been for a long time. But what I would say is that there's a lot of changes happening in the Middle East, including going back to the Abraham Accords and then the possibility of normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia. And that clearly connects up to the kind of broader geostrategic competition in the region, bringing in not just issues related to Israel and the status of Palestinians, including in the Gaza Strip and in the West Bank, but also the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran and that competition that has been a longstanding feature of the geopolitics of the Middle East.

Georgia Howe: Right. Can you expand on this, how an improvement of the relationship between Israel and Saudi Arabia might impact Iran in particular?

Will Ruger: Yeah, I mean clearly normalization of Israeli relations would be an increased challenge for Iran and something that they may not wish to see particularly if there would be a security guarantee given to Saudi Arabia by the United States. So obviously some desire for that not to happen on the Iranian side. And also Iran uses proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas to project influence beyond its borders. And that's been a normal feature. And I say normal and not in the sense of being a good thing, but a consistent feature of what's been going on in the Middle East for years and years.

Georgia Howe: Hezbollah actually receives more money from Iran than Hamas, according to most figures that I've seen, a lot more actually. So Hezbollah has been, I think, Iran's main proxy in the region and Hamas to a lesser extent. And again, there have been rifts between Hamas and Iran in the past, especially over what's been happening in Syria. So it hasn't always been smooth sailing between Iran and Hamas. But clearly, there's a sense that at the least that there's been what the administration called a kind of broadly complicit relationship between Hamas and Iran. Although in the case of these particular attacks, these haven't been confirmed.

John Bickley: Right. The Biden administration has repeatedly said that, though we have seen the Wall Street Journal saying they have confirmation from various officials that Iran was heavily involved leading up to this attack, potentially coordinating it. Does the strike help Hamas or Iran in any way? Does this benefit them or does it hurt their positions in the region?

Will Ruger: Well, I mean, one thing that I've been saying consistently since the, you know, atrocious and awful attacks by Hamas has been that it's actually not just immoral, but actually strategically foolish. You know, the reason for this is that when terrorist organizations or militants use civilian-centric targeting, right, they intentionally target innocent non-combatants, this actually usually doesn't work. There's been a lot of research done by scholars, including Max Abrams at Northeastern, that have shown that this just is not strategically rational from the standpoint of trying to meet any type of kind of strategically political goals, political ends. And so it's foolish. And to the extent to which Iran is supporting Hamas, then you could imagine it being foolish also for the Iranians because of the fact that it could backfire. This could lead to Hamas as we seeing already Hamas being if not eradicated severely eroded in terms of its capability as an effective organization. So you could see that this actually could backfire. And that's one of the reasons why, again, it's easy to make the case that these things are immoral, that they're evil. They certainly are. But there's also strategically foolish.

Georgia Howe: Well, when it comes to Hamas, perhaps there isn't much strategy here. Their charter, their stated purpose for existing includes wiping out, obliterating, as they say, Israel. Now, the critics of the Biden administration say they made a massive error by releasing $6 billion in exchange for hostages to Iran, that it could encourage more aggression from Iran. Is this a fair criticism?

Will Ruger: One of the things about the money is the administration has been trying to say that, of course, this money is kind of cordoned off. It can be used for food or humanitarian reasons. But people who have argued back against that narrative have said, look, money's fungible, and therefore they would have more access to resources that they might otherwise have to use for other purposes. So I get the arguments that are being made on both sides. I'm not sure how constructive that's going to be because the real question isn't so much whether this freed up money or whatnot, but whether it's the right policy approach and whether it meets American national interests and the extent to which Iran is complicit in this.

John Bickley: Does the strike help Hamas or Iran in any way? Does this benefit them or does it hurt their positions in the region?

Will Ruger: Well, I mean, one thing that I've been saying consistently since the, you know, atrocious and awful attacks by Hamas has been that it's actually not just immoral, but actually strategically foolish. You know, the reason for this is that when terrorist organizations or militants use civilian-centric targeting, right, they intentionally target innocent non-combatants, this actually usually doesn't work. There's been a lot of research done by scholars, including Max Abrams at Northeastern, that have shown that this just is not strategically rational from the standpoint of trying to meet any type of kind of strategically political goals, political ends. And so it's foolish. And to the extent to which Iran is supporting Hamas, then you could imagine it being foolish also for the Iranians because of the fact that it could backfire. This could lead to Hamas as we seeing already Hamas being if not eradicated severely eroded in terms of its capability as an effective organization. So you could see that this actually could backfire. And that's one of the reasons why, again, it's easy to make the case that these things are immoral, that they're evil. They certainly are. But there's also strategically foolish.

Georgia Howe: Well, when it comes to Hamas, perhaps there isn't much strategy here. Their charter, their stated purpose for existing includes wiping out, obliterating, as they say, Israel. Now, the critics of the Biden administration say they made a massive error by releasing $6 billion in exchange for hostages to Iran, that it could encourage more aggression from Iran. Is this a fair criticism?

Will Ruger: One of the things about the money is the administration has been trying to say that, of course, this money is kind of cordoned off. It can be used for food or humanitarian reasons. But people who have argued back against that narrative have said, look, money's fungible, and therefore they would have more access to resources that they might otherwise have to use for other purposes. So I get the arguments that are being made on both sides. I'm not sure how constructive that's going to be because the real question isn't so much whether this freed up money or whatnot, but whether it's the right policy approach and whether it meets American national interests and the extent to which Iran is complicit in this.

John Bickley: When it comes to Hamas, perhaps there isn't much strategy here. Their charter, their stated purpose for existing includes wiping out, obliterating, as they say, Israel. Now, the critics of the Biden administration say they made a massive error by releasing $6 billion in exchange for hostages to Iran, that it could encourage more aggression from Iran. Is this a fair criticism?

Will Ruger: One of the things about the money is the administration has been trying to say that, of course, this money is kind of cordoned off. It can be used for food or humanitarian reasons. But people who have argued back against that narrative have said, look, money's fungible, and therefore they would have more access to resources that they might otherwise have to use for other purposes. So I get the arguments that are being made on both sides. I'm not sure how constructive that's going to be because the real question isn't so much whether this freed up money or whatnot, but whether it's the right policy approach and whether it meets American national interests and the extent to which Iran is complicit in this.

Georgia Howe: Does the strike help Hamas or Iran in any way? Does this benefit them or does it hurt their positions in the region?

Will Ruger: Well, I mean, one thing that I've been saying consistently since the, you know, atrocious and awful attacks by Hamas has been that it's actually not just immoral, but actually strategically foolish. You know, the reason for this is that when terrorist organizations or militants use civilian-centric targeting, right, they intentionally target innocent non-combatants, this actually usually doesn't work. There's been a lot of research done by scholars, including Max Abrams at Northeastern, that have shown that this just is not strategically rational from the standpoint of trying to meet any type of kind of strategically political goals, political ends. And so it's foolish. And to the extent to which Iran is supporting Hamas, then you could imagine it being foolish also for the Iranians because of the fact that it could backfire. This could lead to Hamas as we seeing already Hamas being if not eradicated severely eroded in terms of its capability as an effective organization. So you could see that this actually could backfire. And that's one of the reasons why, again, it's easy to make the case that these things are immoral, that they're evil. They certainly are. But there's also strategically foolish.

Georgia Howe: Well, when it comes to Hamas, perhaps there isn't much strategy here. Their charter, their stated purpose for existing includes wiping out, obliterating, as they say, Israel. Now, the critics of the Biden administration say they made a massive error by releasing $6 billion in exchange for hostages to Iran, that it could encourage more aggression from Iran. Is this a fair criticism?

Will Ruger: One of the things about the money is the administration has been trying to say that, of course, this money is kind of cordoned off. It can be used for food or humanitarian reasons. But people who have argued back against that narrative have said, look, money's fungible, and therefore they would have more access to resources that they might otherwise have to use for other purposes. So I get the arguments that are being made on both sides. I'm not sure how constructive that's going to be because the real question isn't so much whether this freed up money or whatnot, but whether it's the right policy approach and whether it meets American national interests and the extent to which Iran is complicit in this.

John Bickley: Does the strike help Hamas or Iran in any way? Does this benefit them or does it hurt their positions in the region?

Will Ruger: Well, I mean, one thing that I've been saying consistently since the, you know, atrocious and awful attacks by Hamas has been that it's actually not just immoral, but actually strategically foolish. You know, the reason for this is that when terrorist organizations or militants use civilian-centric targeting, right, they intentionally target innocent non-combatants, this actually usually doesn't work. There's been a lot of research done by scholars, including Max Abrams at Northeastern, that have shown that this just is not strategically rational from the standpoint of trying to meet any type of kind of strategically political goals, political ends. And so it's foolish. And to the extent to which Iran is supporting Hamas, then you could imagine it being foolish also for the Iranians because of the fact that it could backfire. This could lead to Hamas as we seeing already Hamas being if not eradicated severely eroded in terms of its capability as an effective organization. So you could see that this actually could backfire. And that's one of the reasons why, again, it's easy to make the case that these things are immoral, that they're evil. They certainly are. But there's also strategically foolish.

Georgia Howe: Does the strike help Hamas or Iran in any way? Does this benefit them or does it hurt their positions in the region?

Will Ruger: Well, I mean, one thing that I've been saying consistently since the, you know, atrocious and awful attacks by Hamas has been that it's actually not just immoral, but actually strategically foolish. You know, the reason for this is that when terrorist organizations or militants use civilian-centric targeting, right, they intentionally target innocent non-combatants, this actually usually doesn't work. There's been a lot of research done by scholars, including Max Abrams at Northeastern, that have shown that this just is not strategically rational from the standpoint of trying to meet any type of kind of strategically political goals, political ends. And so it's foolish. And to the extent to which Iran is supporting Hamas, then you could imagine it being foolish also for the Iranians because of the fact that it could backfire. This could lead to Hamas as we seeing already Hamas being if not eradicated severely eroded in terms of its capability as an effective organization. So you could see that this actually could backfire. And that's one of the reasons why, again, it's easy to make the case that these things are immoral, that they're evil. They certainly are. But there's also strategically foolish.

Georgia Howe: Well, when it comes to Hamas, perhaps there isn't much strategy here. Their charter, their stated purpose for existing includes wiping out, obliterating, as they say, Israel. Now, the critics of the Biden administration say they made a massive error by releasing $6 billion in exchange for hostages to Iran, that it could encourage more aggression from Iran. Is this a fair criticism?

Will Ruger: One of the things about the money is the administration has been trying to say that, of course, this money is kind of cordoned off. It can be used for food or humanitarian reasons. But people who have argued back against that narrative have said, look, money's fungible, and therefore they would have more access to resources that they might otherwise have to use for other purposes. So I get the arguments that are being made on both sides. I'm not sure how constructive that's going to be because the real question isn't so much whether this freed up money or whatnot, but whether it's the right policy approach and whether it meets American national interests and the extent to which Iran is complicit in this.

John Bickley: Does the strike help Hamas or Iran in any way? Does this benefit them or does it hurt their positions in the region?

Will Ruger: Well, I mean, one thing that I've been saying consistently since the, you know, atrocious and awful attacks by Hamas has been that it's actually not just immoral, but actually strategically foolish. You know, the reason for this is that when terrorist organizations or militants use civilian-centric targeting, right, they intentionally target innocent non-combatants, this actually usually doesn't work. There's been a lot of research done by scholars, including Max Abrams at Northeastern, that have shown that this just is not strategically rational from the standpoint of trying to meet any type of kind of strategically political goals, political ends. And so it's foolish. And to the extent to which Iran is supporting Hamas, then you could imagine it being foolish also for the Iranians because of the fact that it could backfire. This could lead to Hamas as we seeing already Hamas being if not eradicated severely eroded in terms of its capability as an effective organization. So you could see that this actually could backfire. And that's one of the reasons why, again, it's easy to make the case that these things are immoral, that they're evil. They certainly are. But there's also strategically foolish.

Georgia Howe: Does the strike help Hamas or Iran in any way? Does this benefit them or does it hurt their positions in the region?

Will Ruger: Well, I mean, one thing that I've been saying consistently since the, you know, atrocious and awful attacks by Hamas has been that it's actually not just immoral, but actually strategically foolish. You know, the reason for this is that when terrorist organizations or militants use civilian-centric targeting, right, they intentionally target innocent non-combatants, this actually usually doesn't work. There's been a lot of research done by scholars, including Max Abrams at Northeastern, that have shown that this just is not strategically rational from the standpoint of trying to meet any type of kind of strategically political goals, political ends. And so it's foolish. And to the extent to which Iran is supporting Hamas, then you could imagine it being foolish also for the Iranians because of the fact that it could backfire. This could lead to Hamas as we seeing already Hamas being if not eradicated severely eroded in terms of its capability as an effective organization. So you could see that this actually could backfire. And that's one of the reasons why, again, it's easy to make the case that these things are immoral, that they're evil. They certainly are. But there's also strategically foolish.

Georgia Howe: Does the strike help Hamas or Iran in any way? Does this benefit them or does it hurt their positions in the region?

Will Ruger: Well, I mean, one thing that I've been saying consistently since the, you know, atrocious and awful attacks by Hamas has been that it's actually not just immoral, but actually strategically foolish. You know, the reason for this is that when terrorist organizations or militants use civilian-centric targeting, right, they intentionally target innocent non-combatants, this actually usually doesn't work. There's been a lot of research done by scholars, including Max Abrams at Northeastern, that have shown that this just is not strategically rational from the standpoint of trying to meet any type of kind of strategically political goals, political ends. And so it's foolish. And to the extent to which Iran is supporting Hamas, then you could imagine it being foolish also for the Iranians because of the fact that it could backfire. This could lead to Hamas as we seeing already Hamas being if not eradicated severely eroded in terms of its capability as an effective organization. So you could see that this actually could backfire. And that's one of the reasons why, again, it's easy to make the case that these things are immoral, that they're evil. They certainly are. But there's also strategically foolish.

Georgia Howe: Does the strike help Hamas or Iran in any way? Does this benefit them or does it hurt their positions in the region?

Will Ruger: Well, I mean, one thing that I've been saying consistently since the, you know, atrocious and awful attacks by Hamas has been that it's actually not just immoral, but actually strategically foolish. You know, the reason for this is that when terrorist organizations or militants use civilian-centric targeting, right, they intentionally target innocent non-combatants, this actually usually doesn't work. There's been a lot of research done by scholars, including Max Abrams at Northeastern, that have shown that this just is not strategically rational from the standpoint of trying to meet any type of kind of strategically political goals, political ends. And so it's foolish. And to the extent to which Iran is supporting Hamas, then you could imagine it being foolish also for the Iranians because of the fact that it could backfire. This could lead to Hamas as we seeing already Hamas being if not eradicated severely eroded in terms of its capability as an effective organization. So you could see that this actually could backfire. And that's one of the reasons why, again, it's easy to make the case that these things are immoral, that they're evil. They certainly are. But there's also strategically foolish.

Georgia Howe: Does the strike help Hamas or Iran in any way? Does this benefit them or does it hurt their positions in the region?

Will Ruger: Well, I mean, one thing that I've been saying consistently since the, you know, atrocious and awful attacks by Hamas has been that it's actually not just immoral, but actually strategically foolish. You know, the reason for this is that when terrorist organizations or militants use civilian-centric targeting, right, they intentionally target innocent non-combatants, this actually usually doesn't work. There's been a lot of research done by scholars, including Max Abrams at Northeastern, that have shown that this just is not strategically rational from the standpoint of trying to meet any type of kind of strategically political goals, political ends. And so it's foolish. And to the extent to which Iran is supporting Hamas, then you could imagine it being foolish also for the Iranians because of the fact that it could backfire. This could lead to Hamas as we seeing already Hamas being if not eradicated severely eroded in terms of its capability as an effective organization. So you could see that this actually could backfire. And that's one of the reasons why, again, it's easy to make the case that these things are immoral, that they're evil. They certainly are. But there's also strategically foolish.

Georgia Howe: Does the strike help Hamas or Iran in any way? Does this benefit them or does it hurt their positions in the region?

Will Ruger: Well, I mean, one thing that I've been saying consistently since the, you know, atrocious and awful attacks by Hamas has been that it's actually not just immoral, but actually strategically foolish. You know, the reason for this is that when terrorist organizations or militants use civilian-centric targeting, right, they intentionally target innocent non-combatants, this actually usually doesn't work. There's been a lot of research done by scholars, including Max Abrams at Northeastern, that have shown that this just is not strategically rational from the standpoint of trying to meet any type of kind of strategically political goals, political ends. And so it's foolish. And to the extent to which Iran is supporting Hamas, then you could imagine it being foolish also for the Iranians because of the fact that it could backfire. This could lead to Hamas as we seeing already Hamas being if not eradicated severely eroded in terms of its capability as an effective organization. So you could see that this actually could backfire. And that's one of the reasons why, again, it's easy to make the case that these things are immoral, that they're evil. They certainly are. But there's also strategically foolish.

Georgia Howe: Does the strike help Hamas or Iran in any way? Does this benefit them or does it hurt their positions in the region?

Will Ruger: Well, I mean, one thing that I've been saying consistently since the, you know, atrocious and awful attacks by Hamas has been that it's actually not just immoral, but actually strategically foolish. You know, the reason for this is that when terrorist organizations or militants use civilian-centric targeting, right, they intentionally target innocent non-combatants, this actually usually doesn't work. There's been a lot of research done by scholars, including Max Abrams at Northeastern, that have shown that this just is not strategically rational from the standpoint of trying to meet any type of kind of strategically political goals, political ends. And so it's foolish. And to the extent to which Iran is supporting Hamas, then you could imagine it being foolish also for the Iranians because of the fact that it could backfire. This could lead to Hamas as we seeing already Hamas being if not eradicated severely eroded in terms of its capability as an effective organization. So you could see that this actually could backfire. And that's one of the reasons why, again, it's easy to make the case that these things are immoral, that they're evil. They certainly are. But there's also strategically foolish.

Georgia Howe: Does the strike help Hamas or Iran in any way? Does this benefit them or does it hurt their positions in the region?

Will Ruger: Well, I mean, one thing that I've been saying consistently since the, you know, atrocious and awful attacks by Hamas has been that it's actually not just immoral, but actually strategically foolish. You know, the reason for this is that when terrorist organizations or militants use civilian-centric targeting, right, they intentionally target innocent non-combatants, this actually usually doesn't work. There's been a lot of research done by scholars, including Max Abrams at Northeastern, that have shown that this just is not strategically rational from the standpoint of trying to meet any type of kind of strategically political goals, political ends. And so it's foolish. And to the extent to which Iran is supporting Hamas, then you could imagine it being foolish also for the Iranians because of the fact that it could backfire. This could lead to Hamas as we seeing already Hamas being if not eradicated severely eroded in terms of its capability as an effective organization. So you could see that this actually could backfire. And that's one of the reasons why, again, it's easy to make the case that these things are immoral, that they're evil. They certainly are. But there's also strategically foolish.

Georgia Howe: Does the strike help Hamas or Iran in any way? Does this benefit them or does it hurt their positions in the region?

Will Ruger: Well, I mean, one thing that I've been saying consistently since the, you know, atrocious and awful attacks by Hamas has been that it's actually not just immoral, but actually strategically foolish. You know, the reason for this is that when terrorist organizations or militants use civilian-centric targeting, right, they intentionally target innocent non-combatants, this actually usually doesn't work. There's been a lot of research done by scholars, including Max Abrams at Northeastern, that have shown that this just is not strategically rational from the standpoint of trying to meet any type of kind of strategically political goals, political ends. And so it's foolish. And to the extent to which Iran is supporting Hamas, then you could imagine it being foolish also for the Iranians because of the fact that it could backfire. This could lead to Hamas as we seeing already Hamas being if not eradicated severely eroded in terms of its capability as an effective organization. So you could see that this actually could backfire. And that's one of the reasons why, again, it's easy to make the case that these things are immoral, that they're evil. They certainly are. But there's also strategically foolish.

Georgia Howe: Does the strike help Hamas or Iran in any way? Does this benefit them or does it hurt their positions in the region?

Will Ruger: Well, I mean, one thing that I've been saying consistently since the, you know, atrocious and awful attacks by Hamas has been that it's actually not just immoral, but actually strategically foolish. You know, the reason for this is that when terrorist organizations or militants use civilian-centric targeting, right, they intentionally target innocent non-combatants, this actually usually doesn't work. There's been a lot of research done by scholars, including Max Abrams at Northeastern, that have shown that this just is not strategically rational from the standpoint of trying to meet any type of kind of strategically political goals, political ends. And so it's foolish. And to the extent to which Iran is supporting Hamas, then you could imagine it being foolish also for the Iranians because of the fact that it could backfire. This could lead to Hamas as we seeing already Hamas being if not eradicated severely eroded in terms of its capability as an effective organization. So you could see that this actually could backfire. And that's one of the reasons why, again, it's easy to make the case that these things are immoral, that they're evil. They certainly are. But there's also strategically foolish.

Georgia Howe: Does the strike help Hamas or Iran in any way? Does this benefit them or does it hurt their positions in the region?

Will Ruger: Well, I mean, one thing that I've been saying consistently since the, you know, atrocious and awful attacks by Hamas has been that it's actually not just immoral, but actually strategically foolish. You know, the reason for this is that when terrorist organizations or militants use civilian-centric targeting, right, they intentionally target innocent non-combatants, this actually usually doesn't work. There's been a lot of research done by scholars, including Max Abrams at Northeastern, that have shown that this just is not strategically rational from the standpoint of trying to meet any type of kind of strategically political goals, political ends. And so it's foolish. And to the extent to which Iran is supporting Hamas, then you could imagine it being foolish also for the Iranians because of the fact that it could backfire. This could lead to Hamas as we seeing already Hamas being if not eradicated severely eroded in terms of its capability as an effective organization. So you could see that this actually could backfire. And that's one of the reasons why, again, it's easy to make the case that these things are immoral, that they're evil. They certainly are. But there's also strategically foolish.

Georgia Howe: Does the strike help Hamas or Iran in any way? Does this benefit them or does it hurt their positions in the region?

Will Ruger: Well, I mean, one thing that I've been saying consistently since the, you know, atrocious and awful attacks by Hamas has been that it's actually not just immoral, but actually strategically foolish. You know, the reason for this is that when terrorist organizations or militants use civilian-centric targeting, right, they intentionally target innocent non-combatants, this actually usually doesn't work. There's been a lot of research done by scholars, including Max Abrams at Northeastern, that have shown that this just is not strategically rational from the standpoint of trying to meet any type of kind of strategically political goals, political ends. And so it's foolish. And to the extent to which Iran is supporting Hamas, then you could imagine it being foolish also for the Iranians because of the fact that it could backfire. This could lead to Hamas as we seeing already Hamas being if not eradicated severely eroded in terms of its capability as an effective organization. So you could see that this actually could backfire. And that's one of the reasons why, again, it's easy to make the case that these things are immoral, that they're evil. They certainly are. But there's also strategically foolish.

Georgia Howe: Does the strike help Hamas or Iran in any way? Does this benefit them or does it hurt their positions in the region?

Will Ruger: Well, I mean, one thing that I've been saying consistently since the, you know, atrocious and awful attacks by Hamas has been that it's actually not just immoral, but actually strategically foolish. You know, the reason for this is that when terrorist organizations or militants use civilian-centric targeting, right, they intentionally target innocent non-combatants, this actually usually doesn't work. There's been a lot of research done by scholars, including Max Abrams at Northeastern, that have shown that this just is not strategically rational from the standpoint of trying to meet any type of kind of strategically political goals, political ends. And so it's foolish. And to the extent to which Iran is supporting Hamas, then you could imagine it being foolish also for the Iranians because of the fact that it could backfire. This could lead to Hamas as we seeing already Hamas being if not eradicated severely eroded in terms of its capability as an effective organization. So you could see that this actually could backfire. And that's one of the reasons why, again, it's easy to make the case that these things are immoral, that they're evil. They certainly are. But there's also strategically foolish.

Georgia Howe: Does the strike help Hamas or Iran in any way? Does this benefit them or does it hurt their positions in the region?

Will Ruger: Well, I mean, one thing that I've been saying consistently since the, you know, atrocious and awful attacks by Hamas has been that it's actually not just immoral, but actually strategically foolish. You know, the reason for this is that when terrorist organizations or militants use civilian-centric targeting, right, they intentionally target innocent non-combatants, this actually usually doesn't work. There's been a lot of research done by scholars, including Max Abrams at Northeastern, that have shown that this just is not strategically rational from the standpoint of trying to meet any type of kind of strategically political goals, political ends. And so it's foolish. And to the extent to which Iran is supporting Hamas, then you could imagine it being foolish also for the Iranians because of the fact that it could backfire. This could lead to Hamas as we seeing already Hamas being if not eradicated severely eroded in terms of its capability as an effective organization. So you could see that this actually could backfire. And that's one of the reasons why, again, it's easy to make the case that these things are immoral, that they're evil. They certainly are. But there's also strategically foolish.

Georgia Howe: Does the strike help Hamas or Iran in any way? Does this benefit them or does it hurt their positions in the region?

Will Ruger: Well, I mean, one thing that I've been saying consistently since the, you know, atrocious and awful attacks by Hamas has been that it's actually not just immoral, but actually strategically foolish. You know, the reason for this is that when terrorist organizations or militants use civilian-centric targeting, right, they intentionally target innocent non-combatants, this actually usually doesn't work. There's been a lot of research done by scholars, including Max Abrams at Northeastern, that have shown that this just is not strategically rational from the standpoint of trying to meet any type of kind of strategically political goals, political ends. And so it's foolish. And to the extent to which Iran is supporting Hamas, then you could imagine it being foolish also for the Iranians because of the fact that it could backfire. This could lead to Hamas as we seeing already Hamas being if not eradicated severely eroded in terms of its capability as an effective organization. So you could see that this actually could backfire. And that's one of the reasons why, again, it's easy to make the case that these things are immoral, that they're evil. They certainly are. But there's also strategically foolish.

Georgia Howe: Does the strike help Hamas or Iran in any way? Does this benefit them or does it hurt their positions in the region?

Will Ruger: Well, I mean, one thing that I've been saying consistently since the, you know, atrocious and awful attacks by Hamas has been that it's actually not just immoral, but actually strategically foolish. You know, the reason for this is that when terrorist organizations or militants use civilian-centric targeting, right, they intentionally target innocent non-combatants, this actually usually doesn't work. There's been a lot of research done by scholars, including Max Abrams at Northeastern, that have shown that this just is not strategically rational from the standpoint of trying to meet any type of kind of strategically political goals, political ends. And so it's foolish. And to the extent to which Iran is supporting Hamas, then you could imagine it being foolish also for the Iranians because of the fact that it could backfire. This could lead to Hamas as we seeing already Hamas being if not eradicated severely eroded in terms of its capability as an effective organization. So you could see that this actually could backfire. And that's one of the reasons why, again, it's easy to make the case that these things are immoral, that they're evil. They certainly are. But there's also strategically foolish.

Georgia Howe: Does the strike help Hamas or Iran in any way? Does this benefit them or does it hurt their positions in the region?

Will Ruger: Well, I mean, one thing that I've been saying consistently since the, you know, atrocious and awful attacks by Hamas has been that it's actually not just immoral, but actually strategically foolish. You know, the reason for this is that when terrorist organizations or militants use civilian-centric targeting, right, they intentionally target innocent non-combatants, this actually usually doesn't work. There's been a lot of research done by scholars, including Max Abrams at Northeastern, that have shown that this just is not strategically rational from the standpoint of trying to meet any type of kind of strategically political goals, political ends. And so it's foolish. And to the extent to which Iran is supporting Hamas, then you could imagine it being foolish also for the Iranians because of the fact that it could backfire. This could lead to Hamas as we seeing already Hamas being if not eradicated severely eroded in terms of its capability as an effective organization. So you could see that this actually could backfire. And that's one of the reasons why, again, it's easy to make the case that these things are